OnPoint: Manufacturing Dissent
73 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Total: 340 above the original forecast by 2018. About a tenth of the total increase. It's not nothing, but it's not the source of the problem, either.
I'm confused (perhaps because it's Friday and my brain has unwound).
If I read correctly, 90% of the forecast increase in numbers is not the result of tougher sentencing. I understand the crime rate is in decline, yet our imprisonment rate is set to rise significantly (a whole lot more than 10%). So what is the source of the problem then?
Doesn't seem to make sense.
-
If I read correctly, 90% of the forecast increase in numbers is not the result of tougher sentencing. I understand the crime rate is in decline, yet our imprisonment rate is set to rise significantly (a whole lot more than 10%). So what is the source of the problem then?
Have you considered that the crime rate may be in decline because of the higher rate of imprisonment?
-
Steven, I like what you say in this place, but I could see that it wasn't going to be a quick discussion if it continued down that track and I stayed in it.
I have responded on the other thread about the ACC counsellors and funding, which I didn't dig up last night though I remembered it was there. You know I'm happy to have lengthy discussions here, but I was not in the mood last night and so I was signalling that. Maybe not well enough. Sorry if it came across as dismissive.
I am not pessimistic. And I am on your side.
As a strategist I was just suggesting that the target for action is not individual therapists if you want to fix this situation which you are so obviously passionate about. You have some power and lots of credibility because of your experiences.
But the therapists are not where you need to direct that energy, except maybe recruiting them as allies. The politicians and officials in the background who control funding and direction of health services are where the answer lies. I was saying that the broader problem has been going on for decades, and the current issue is the tip of a very large iceberg.
Doesn't mean you can't do something about it, just that you have to know what you're pusing against so you don't get exhausted and drown.
I'm sorry if that came across as patronising - never my intent.
-
Have you considered that the crime rate may be in decline because of the higher rate of imprisonment?
I have wondered about that. It strikes me that it's hard to prove. Clearly some kinds of crime are prevented by imprisoning potential offenders. But:
- some violent offenders continue to offend in prison;
- if prison reinforces criminal propensities, then the offences prevented by confinement might be counterbalanced by offences committed afterwards;
- the demographic most likely to commit crime is declining as a proportion of the population so you need to factor that out.That's just off the top of my head.
Also, prison costs a lot of money. If you are imprisoned until you die, you'll never assault anyone (on the outside) again, but there's a reasonable chance that you wouldn't anyway. From a cost-benefit point of view there is a sentence length where the cost of incarceration outweighs the benefit to society of preventing any future offences. So yeah, maybe increased sentences are preventing some crime, but we kind of knew that anyway. What we need to understand is the complex relationship between sentence length, crimes prevented, recidivism and so on. Then we can answer the question of where the correct balance is.
In other words, that may be a correct supposition, and yet I would still want to review our current policies and would find it plausible that when all factors are considered, sentences are too long and too frequent.
-
Have you considered that the crime rate may be in decline because of the higher rate of imprisonment?
I hadn't considered that, however it doesn't seem as if that would explain the predicted higher rate. If the crime rate is in decline then we should see fewer being sent to prison than the numbers being released (who were imprisoned at a higher rate).
My big mistake may be assuming that imprisonment rate is directly proportional to crime rate. I took it that Keith had covered that in his sentencing remarks - but there could be other factors (conviction rate for example).
-
I honestly think there's just some people in society who haven't learned to internalise "if I do this I will go to jail" at least to the extent that it makes them think otherwise before committing a crime (for some it might be more like "if I do this I probably wont get caught").
I think these people are the ones we're more likely to see committing crime - but equally it means that increasing sentences has no effect - because they don't think it applies to them - by the time they do get caught it's too late.
-
think these people are the ones we're more likely to see committing crime - but equally it means that increasing sentences has no effect...
No deterrent effect.
Once they're inside, they not committing burglaries (or whatever).
-
Um, not quite! Because, of course, prisoners can assault etc other prisoners and prison guards.
(Probably they offend at a much reduced rate, or at least you'd hope so, but they can still offend on the inside.)
-
Have you considered that the crime rate may be in decline because of the higher rate of imprisonment?
In which case, why is the rate of imprisonment meant to continue escalating? If the crime rate is in decline because we're locking more people up, the tipping point must surely have been reached. That we're continuing to lock up increasing numbers of people says that we can't possibly be at the point where the crime rate is decreasing because more people who commit crimes are inside than outside.
-
Its near on amazing just how many prison inmates are in jail for a crime which involved alcohol.
There's a definate link between the consumption of booze and recorded crimes ....
And we keep pushing the booze.
-
So - why do we keep drinking it?
This is the mammoth in the room: humans actually need stimulant/enhancement/depressant-but-feel-good/analgesant
and/or hallucogene - to continue to be. Like, live-
quite a few of us get a hormone high (from various activities) and quite a few of us get a kind of reverse/perverse high frompennitential/fasting type practises.All sane adult humans know - we die.
Few sane Western-educated humans (I'm one) believe that death is anything but extinction - you die, that's it (EXCEPT for whatever works you have created.)
I think ANZ has an extremely irreligious = sane population (we know about all those slaughtered sheep1) and - given there is - so far - no other alternative, - we try to blot it out-
so yeah, nz native, we keep drinking-
-
All sane adult humans know - we die.
Yep twice even for us this week. I like to celebrate death rather than mourn death too much but as soon as there is a kink in the works all hell can break loose. Go figure?
-
Just as a tidbit of info, the Roc*RoI risk assement tool corrections uses is intended to assess future risk of reoffending using objective data, based on past statisitics.
(There was a bit of a kerfuffle about the inclusion of maoriness as a risk factor coupla years ago)
Average reoffending as against avaerage Roc*RoI score might be considered a fair measure of a prison's rehabilitative skillz.
-
why is the rate of imprisonment meant to continue escalating? If the crime rate is in decline because we're locking more people up, the tipping point must surely have been reached.
When they run out of people breaking existng laws they make new ones, after all if there were no crime why would we need police? or government for that matter.
-
why is the rate of imprisonment meant to continue escalating?
Anyone else see alcohol prohibition on the horizon?
Speaking of Chomsky, few other widely respected academics have had so many theories disproven.
-
Anyone else see alcohol prohibition on the horizon?
I was about to say "Because that just worked so well for the Americans", and then realised that we seem to be cursed with polly-tubbies who can't learn from the history of other nations' mistakes. If they don't get made here, they didn't happen. Witness the apparent determination to engage in PPPs for infrastructure spending, and what looks like the beginnings of the end for ACC.
-
Speaking of Chomsky, few other widely respected academics have had so many theories disproven.
Mark, I presume you mean actually disproven in academic terms, not just forcefully disagreed with because they're inconvenient to those in power. And are you talking aobut his earlier linguistic work?
-
Yeah, just the linguistic stuff. That's the only work of his that I've studied in any detail.
-
Speaking of Chomsky, few other widely respected academics have had so many theories disproven.
Really? I don't having anything to go by here, maybe you do. But I'd be very surprised if anyone who was on the cutting edge of any newish field of inquiry 40 odd years ago didn't have a lot of their theories disproven by now. Have no idea if Chomsky is out of the mainstream in that.
Being wrong isn't something a scientist should lose respect for anyway. It's easy to not be wrong.
-
Being wrong isn't something a scientist should lose respect for anyway. It's easy to not be wrong.
Indeed.Also I'm not sure that disproved necessarily entails wrong.
Have no idea if Chomsky is out of the mainstream in that.
No, hes firmly ensconced as he's kept updating and revising. A mere graze on the God's record.
-
I haven't really kept up with the development of linguistic theory for the last couple of decades. Are you saying the deep structure stuff that Chomsky pioneered is now regarded as completely wrong, or do we just have a more nuanced understanding of its place alongside other stuff? Also likely in any case to be affected by the pendulum swing from nurture to nature, egged on by biogenetics investment imperatives.
-
Are you saying the deep structure stuff that Chomsky pioneered is now regarded as completely wrong, or do we just have a more nuanced understanding of its place alongside other stuff?
More nuanced understanding, this page has info about the changes that have taken place there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational-generative_grammar
-
Anyone else see alcohol prohibition on the horizon?
Interesting that you should say that. There could be some global activity on that front in the near future.
Having had to go cold turkey this year for medical reasons, though, I have somewhat more equivocal views on this than I once did. Objectively speaking, alcohol's a very destructive drug. If the idea that we all experience harm from "passive drinking" catches on, it could be interesting to watch. There is, it seems to me, a strong prima facie case for treating alcohol consumption more like smoking than has been case up until now. And at one point the tobacco companies looked as impregnable as the booze barons do now ...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.